I am a freelance journalist and author living in Cardiff, UK.
In my career to date, I have worked in newspaper, radio and online journalism. I have also had three sports biographies published, on jockey Frankie Dettori, rugby star Brian O'Driscoll and controversial cricketer Kevin Pietersen.
The purpose of this blog is to give you a chance to read some of my work that has not yet been published in print form.
If you wish to use any of this material, please drop me an email at: firstname.lastname@example.org.
I am willing to adapt or expand the work in question to suit your publication.
FOR MANY years, I have held the view that a large number of political journalists, especially those working in the broadcast media, are more interested in gossip than issues.
A good political journalist, especially one working in the broadcast sphere where there is a regulatory requirement for impartiality, should include nothing other than facts and balanced analysis in their reports, with pictures to fit the story.
Since political reporters spend so much time in the Westminster bubble, they all too often lose sight of the fact that Mrs Jones, watching the evening news from her council house in Treherbert, isn’t especially interested in whether David Davis and Michel Barnier are getting along this week, but she does care about whether a ‘no deal’ Brexit will result in an increase in her weekly shopping bill.
With this in mind, virtually all political reporters working in TV and radio band about the terms ‘Single Market’ and ‘Customs Union’, but I cannot think of a single one who has made any serious attempt to explain what these terms actually mean, let alone what withdrawing from one or either would mean for the UK economy.
This latest policy shift is just another sop to try and buy their loyalty, but it is unlikely to work. They know they have to put up with Mr Corbyn for now because he fared far better than predicted at this year’s General Election, but given time, the Stephen Doughtys and Hilary Benns of this world will try to remove him as leader and replace him with a New Labour apparatchik.
But I digress. We know Mr Corbyn has changed Labour’s policy to favour continued membership of the Single Market and the Customs Union. We know it is Conservative Party policy to withdraw from both. But how many people, quite possibly including the political reporters who grace our screens every evening, can accurately define either?
The Single Market has no specific legal definition. It essentially means ‘single regulatory regime’. It aims to break down all barriers to trading across the EU and even to non-EU member states by ensuring the ‘four freedoms’ – goods, services, capital and labour.
Free movement of goods, services and capital means the elimination of tariffs and reduces costs and administrative burdens by applying the same set of rules (ie ‘single regulatory regime’) among all those states which are a member of it.
But there is a catch – free movement of labour is not an absolute condition of Single Market membership. More on that later.
The Customs Union ensures all member countries charge the same import duties to non-members. For Brexit to be a success, it is essential that the UK is not part of the Customs Union. It will prevent our country from being able to agree free trade deals with the wider world, or even set tariffs on our own terms to countries where no free trade deal exists. The importance of not being part of the Customs Union cannot be understated. Labour’s support for continued membership of the Customs Union is baffling, especially since they claim to support Brexit on principle.
I favour continued membership of the Single Market. Let me be clear, my priority is or the United Kingdom to get out and stay out of the European Union. My side won the referendum, and by a clear, though not overwhelming margin, but I take on board Sir Winston Churchill’s wise maxim, ‘In victory: Magnanimity’.
With that in mind, I wish to persuade as many Remain voters as possible of my arguments, and am the first to acknowledge that, if handled incorrectly, Brexit could go badly wrong.
By the same token, I am painfully aware that there are those among the political establishment, and indeed the media, who actively want Brexit to fail so that they can say ‘I told you so’. I’ll name two such individuals – ‘Sir’ Vince Cable (leader of the sarcastically-titled Liberal Democrats), and James O’Brien (a condescending creep who hosts a three-hour daily anti-Brexit radio programme on LBC, where he frequently lies, smears and twists the words of Brexit campaigners).
A ‘worst case scenario’ would see, on the day after Brexit, huge queues of lorries at Dover because of the endless bureaucratic procedures the EU must by international law impose on ‘third countries’, which the UK will have then become.
With jobs vanishing by the day, and the value of the pound plummeting, the government would fall. The arrogant Remainers are already waiting in the wings to take their revenge, from the aforementioned ‘Sir’ Vince Cable, to the Blairites and Brownites on the Labour back benches, to the likes of Anna Soubry and Kenneth Clarke among the Conservatives, to the SNP and Plaid Cymru, who seek to see Scotland and Wales ruled directly from Brussels, doing away with the Westminster ‘middle man’.
A new government (of ANY party) could then seek election pledging re-entry to the European Union on whatever terms they could get, meaning we would almost certainly be compelled to adopt the euro as part of our national humiliation. We could also forget controlling our borders, whether from a cheap influx of EU labour, or from the social unrest being brought about by the massive growth of Islamic populations across Mainland Europe.
I prefer a more cautious approach, based on precedents that have already been set. What is colloquially known as the ‘Norway Option’ would be far, far easier to achieve, because we would be following a path that has already been laid out, meaning years of monotonous negotiations would not be necessary.
Here’s how it works. Norway is not, nor never has been, a member of the European Union. It is, however, a member of the European Economic Area (EEA).
If the UK chose to stay in the EEA, we would be able to leave the EU, agree our own trade deals with non-EU countries (since we would NOT be in the Customs Union), and will stay in the Single Market.
Crucially, we would also be able to suspend ‘freedom of movement’ since EEA members are allowed to activate Article 112 of the EEA agreement, known as the ‘emergency brake’. This method has been used by Lichtenstein to suspend ‘freedom of movement’ indefinitely, and implement its own quota system. As a far larger country with much more clout, the UK could do the same with ease.
There are, inevitably, downsides to EEA membership. We would still have to pay some money every year, though nowhere near as much as at present. We’d also have to accept their regulations when we traded with them, but then again, we also have to accept the rules of the USA, China, India or any other country we choose to trade with, which is reasonable.
But on the crucial matters – Parliamentary sovereignty, the supremacy of British courts, immigration controls, the ability to form trade deals with the wider world, and the ability to form a genuinely independent foreign policy, we would be winners on all counts.
We would no longer be in a situation where EU law overrides British law. The highest courts in the land would sit in this country, our elected representatives in Parliament would have the power to set criteria to limit immigration levels, our armed forces personnel would never, ever have to swear an oath of allegiance to the EU flag (it’s coming, Mr Juncker has said as much), and we would be free from the protectionist EU regulations that currently prevent us from forming trade deals with the wider world, such as Brazil, India and Singapore – places with growing economies and populations, where people actually live.
This solution is remarkably straightforward and uncomplicated. The road map is already in place. Why is our political establishment so reluctant to embrace it?
THE ONGOING sulk-a-thon by a small but vocal minority of Remain supporters who refuse to accept the result of a referendum that took place 15 months ago shows no sign of abating.
Last Saturday, ‘The People’s March for Europe’ consisting of between 10,000-15,000 Remoaners took a route through central London before a rally in Parliament Square.
Organisers claimed that as the march progressed, numbers swelled to 50,000, though police have not verified these figures, and it does strike me as rather odd that passers-by would abandon their shopping or sightseeing to follow a march that ended with speeches by such nonentities as Lib Dem leader ‘Sir’ Vince Cable (who could easily be mistaken for the late comedy actor Ken Campbell) and his almost-entirely forgotten colleague ‘Sir’ Ed Davey.
Going by the pictures, the marchers appeared to consist of the usual suspects – ageing university lecturer types in corduroy jackets and white beards, and the middle class, brainwashed, precious students who attend their lectures. Both these demographics are all too often guilty of a ‘we know what’s best for you’ attitude.
More significantly, later that day, the Last Night of the Proms took place at the Royal Albert Hall. An organisation named ‘EU Flags Proms Team’ spent £4,000 to hand out twice as many EU flags as it did at the same event last year.
A spokesman for the group told The Telegraph: “During the Age of Enlightenment Mozart, Handel and Bach all lived and worked for part of their lives in London.
“Presumably under the Brexit dark ages, they would not be welcome. What an appalling backward step for our country.”
This is a grossly stupid statement and stinks of the sort of cheap opportunism we have become all too accustomed to from the Remoaners. Of course talented musicians from EU countries will be welcome in London post-Brexit. Equally, we will continue to welcome musicians from non-EU countries to the Proms such as Switzerland and Norway.
These anti-Brexit campaigners know full well that the EU and Europe are not the same thing, but it suits their agenda nicely to parody those who wish to leave the EU to be anti-foreigner. One of their main demagogues, James O’Brien, uses his daily three-hour radio show on LBC to routinely and relentlessly smear Leave supporters as racists and xenophobes rather than rational people with legitimate concerns about the lack of democratic accountability in the EU, immigration controls and a wish to form trade deals with growing markets around the world.
The ‘EU Flags Proms Team’ was at least partly successful in turning the Royal Albert Hall into a sea of blue and yellow, on the night of the year when two months of niche Prom concerts barely noticed by the vast majority of the population concludes with half an hour of patriotic singing on prime time BBC One.
There’s no scientific way of telling what the demographic make-up of the Royal Albert Hall was on Saturday evening, but there were a few clues. Firstly, and most obviously, the only non-white faces I spotted all night were those of the performers. The audience, both seated and standing, was overwhelmingly white. Remember, the Royal Albert Hall is located in the heart of what is probably the most racially-diverse city in the world.
Secondly, that hideous high-pitched laugh of the theatre-going intellectual could clearly be heard when the conductor made twee jokes. I can’t prove that there weren’t many bricklayers, bin men, cleaners or market traders in the audience, but it’s a fairly safe bet that most of those present were from the metropolitan professional classes, with a heavy bias towards the public sector, especially the universities sector.
A short walk away at Hyde Park, where the concert was simulcast on big screens, there were few, if any EU flags to be seen among the assembled thousands who had gathered on a chilly September evening to participate in a patriotic sing-song free of charge.
Shortly before the traditional fare of ‘Rule Brittania’ and ‘Land of Hope and Glory’ came a rendition of ‘Surbaya Johnny’ from Kurt Weill’s unsuccessful, short-lived play ‘Happy End’.
The lyrics to ‘Surabaya Johnny’ were written by the Marxist poet, playwright and theatre director Bertolt Brecht. One of his works was the poem, ‘Die Lösung‘ (The Uprising) about the uprising of 1953 in East Germany. It was written in mid-1953, but it criticised of the government and wasn’t published until 1959 in the West German newspaper, ‘Die Welt‘. It goes:
After the uprising of the 17th of June
The Secretary of the Writers’ Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?
I’ve heard it said that Marxist training never goes to waste, and the sentiments of Brecht’s poem certainly appeared to mirror the attitude of quite a few Labour MPs.
In the months after the referendum, David Lammy would frequently go off on Twitter rants saying that ‘we’ (by which he meant ‘Parliament’) can block this ‘madness’ (by which he meant the democratically-expressed will of 17.4 million people, a larger number than had voted for any government in any of our lifetimes).
A similar attitude appeared to exist among the EU flag wavers in the Royal Albert Hall with their, ‘never mind democracy, we know what’s best for you’ attitude. While watching the concert, my mind was cast back exactly 363 days to one of the strangest experiences I have had in two decades of political campaigning.
Stephen Doughty, the Labour MP for Cardiff South and Penarth
My local MP, Stephen Doughty (Labour), invited me to a discussion titled, ‘Brexit Implications for Cardiff South and Penarth’. For those of you who do not know the constituency, it is the seat of former Prime Minister Jim Callaghan, and consists former dockland areas housing some of the oldest black and Muslim communities in the UK, pockets of both working and middle class districts, and the town of Penarth, which is broadly considered to be rather well-off and affluent.
I had no idea what format the meeting would take. It was held in a Greek Cypriot community facility in the old docklands, right in the heart of the poorest part of the constituency. Yet of the 12 people present, I was the only one not from Penarth, there were no non-white people present, and I’m fairly certain I was the only one not to be a card-carrying Labour member.
What became abundantly clear early on was that this meeting was going to be 11 against one. Despite there being only two per cent in the referendum vote, and despite the meeting taking place in possibly the most ethnically-diverse community in the UK, I was the only Brexit supporter present. I suspect Doughty was careful with whom he invited to the meeting.
Doughty opened proceedings by saying that the purpose of this meeting was to gauge local opinion so that he could be guided as to how to act in the vote on triggering Article 50, which was still some months away.
The meeting began with about half an hour of general points, after which we were split into two groups for smaller-scale discussions. The ‘other’ group was chaired by Doughty himself, while the group I was a part of was chaired by his researcher, Tom Hoyles.
The overall tone of the entire meeting was, frankly, dreadful. I am not saying that everyone who hails from Penarth is a snob with an unjustified sense of superiority, but there’s certainly a strong element who are. Most of those present fitted into that category. They were generally older, and had strong connections to the universities sector, either as lecturers, researchers or fellow travellers in some way.
I can recall a few specific remarks. One woman talked about how it was ‘vital’ that the UK stayed in the Single Market. I calmly asked her to tell us what the Single Market actually was. She could not do so.
I helped her out by stating that the ‘Single Market’ actually has no specific legal meaning. It really means “single regulatory regime”. Membership of the Single Market doesn’t mean the right to buy and sell in the EU (pretty much the entire world can do that); it means accepting EU jurisdiction over your domestic technical standards.
She responded by looking down her nose at me and asking, “And how do you know?” (For what it’s worth, I have a 2:1 degree in Politics and Communication Studies from the University of Liverpool, I am a professional journalist and, aged 33, I have two decades of political campaigning behind me).
This was followed by people expressing concerns that their son Tarquin won’t get his research grant into the impact of climate change on soil in West Rutland (or something like that). I responded by pointing out that the UK is a net contributor to the EU, no matter which set of figures you choose to believe, so the UK government could continue to fund all these projects and still have money left over.
Whether funding all these grants is a worthwhile use of public money is another question, and I think fear of a democratically-elected UK government concluding that the money could be used for more worthwhile purposes was what really motivated their concerns.
They then moved on to how Tarquin might struggle to go travelling in his ‘gap yah’ due to visa restrictions.
I reminded them that in reality, visa requirements to many European countries were lifted decades before the UK joined the EEC in 1973. Visa restrictions for travel to France, Sweden Belgium and the Netherlands were lifted in 1947, for Italy, 1948, and Austria followed suit in 1955.
Today, UK passport holders can travel to a vast array of countries both inside and outside the EU without a visa, from Argentina to Singapore to South Africa. It is utterly absurd to say that British people will require a visa to visit European countries beyond 2019, though I completely respect the rights of European nations to put restrictions on middle class British youngsters on ‘gap yahs’ from treating their countries like playgrounds and helping themselves to jobs that should really be the preserve of the country’s own young people.
They then tried playing the ‘it was only an advisory referendum’ card. I responded by reminding them that a few weeks before the referendum, the government sent a lengthy booklet to every household in the country that included the statement, “This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.”
I also made it clear that the 17.4 million people who voted ‘Leave’ were not giving their MPs some friendly advice, they were giving them a firm instruction. Failure to follow this instruction would undermine democracy itself and would risk serious civil unrest. These 17.4 million people were not going to crawl away quietly, nor were the millions of Remain supporters who graciously accepted the result.
Then they tried playing the ‘people didn’t know what they were voting for’ card, but quoting that ‘£300 million per week for the NHS’ figure that the official Leave campaign quoted. The obvious response to that was that the Leave campaign was not a government, or even a political party, they were merely making the point that the money was theoretically available (the true figure is closer to £220 million, but the basic point still stands).
Furthermore, I do not really believe that the ‘£300 million’ quote really changed many minds. I also pointed out the Remain campaign’s absurd ‘Project Fear’, spearheaded by George Osborne, Mark Carney, and their big hero, the all-singing, all-dancing, all-smirking ‘cool dude’, President Barack Obama, who made that menacing ‘back of the queue’ threat to what is supposedly the USA’s biggest ally.
Which brought us on to their next argument that post-Brexit, ‘no-one will trade with us and no-one will be our friend’. Obama’s threat was brought up again. I calmly pointed out that whether Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump won the upcoming election, Barack Obama would not be in the White House either when Article 50 was triggered, or when Brexit negotiations took place.
I am not a fan of Donald Trump and would not have voted for him, but, unlike his predecessor, President Trump respects the democratic will of the British people and is ready and willing to enter into trade talks.
On top of that, I reminded our friends from Penarth that the EU sells more to us than we sell to them, and it would be absurd to pretend that it wouldn’t be in their interests to trade with us on favourable terms.
One woman remarked that Parliament had ‘far more important things to do’ than to ‘waste time’ on Brexit. To me, that just showed the contempt she had for the clearly-expressed concerns of her fellow voters, especially those who feel that the EU, and globalism, isn’t working for them. Not that I expect she invites any such people to her dinner parties, so this meeting was a chance for her to hear, from me, views she is seldom exposed to in real life.
Throughout the meeting, I was patronised in various ways. They spouted the clichés about how I was ‘destroying my own future’ and I was repeatedly addressed as ‘young man’.
What did not get discussed much were the real reasons people voted for Brexit – a desire for a return to proper Parliamentary democracy, the ability to elect and remove those who make decisions that affect our lives, the supremacy of UK courts over foreign ones, a desire for sensible controls on immigration, the ability to form trade deals with the wider world, with countries with growing economies and expanding populations, and the ability to have a genuinely independent foreign policy, free from the clutches of Mr Juncker’s proposed EU army and unnecessary hostility towards Russia and Iran.
In summary, I believe that those present were mainly members of the higher education sector who wanted to protect their own interests, even at the expense of democracy, along with a few easily-manipulated types who had bought in to ‘Project Fear’.
I would give myself an eight out of ten for the way I handled that meeting. It concluded with me making a few remarks about the importance of avoiding extreme language and personal insults, as there had been an utterly poisonous atmosphere in the country for some months, and I was also aware that Doughty was close to the murdered MP, Jo Cox. But I do not believe for one second that Doughty was remotely interested in our opinions.
Doughty is one of those types who followed the ‘classic’ route into politics for a modern-day career politician. He did the politicians’ degree of ‘Philosophy, Politics and Economics’ at Oxford, after which he became an advisor to Labour MP Douglas Alexander.
He tried to get the Labour nomination for the safe seat of Pontypridd in 2010, but lost out to Owen Smith, and had to wait until 2012 for his chance to become an MP, when Alun Michael stood down as member for Cardiff South and Penarth. Mr Michael had known Doughty ‘since he was a baby’, and worked behind the scenes to help his nomination. At 32, Doughty was an MP.
Doughty has all the personal characteristics of a young, career politician. I’ve mixed in these circles on occasion, and, regardless of party, young men like this have certain traits in common. With very little life or ‘real world’ experience, they nearly always have older, male mentors, and have a false sincerity about them that leads to little old ladies saying, “Isn’t he a nice young man?”
By scratching the surface, we soon see that Doughty is not as ‘nice’ as he first seems. His voting record on unwise use of military force is particularly shoddy, in that he supported action to aid the militant Islamist Al-Nusra Front against President Assad’s regime in Syria, and has voted against investigations into the Iraq War of 2003.
Doughty was at his most dirty and underhand, when, in January 2016, he made his intentions to resign from Jeremy Corbyn’s front bench team known to the BBC’s political editor, Laura Kuenssberg, who in turn arranged for him to resign live on air on the Daily Politics programme, rather than by the usual means of sending a letter to the party leader.
Prior to the House of Commons vote on triggering Article 50 in March this year, I tweeted Doughty to say that I would consider standing against him at the next election if he betrayed the expressed will of the people by voting against it. Doughty replied by accusing me of ‘threatening’ him, clearly not understanding how ‘democracy’ works. The election came far sooner than anyone anticipated at the time, and I ended up supporting the Conservative candidate, Bill Rees, who I thought had the best chance of defeating Doughty in a fairly safe Labour seat.
In the run-up to the election, I asked Doughty on THREE separate occasions on Twitter whether he would take the Corbyn whip and be loyal to his leader if Labour won enough seats to form the next government. After the third occasion, Doughty blocked me.
We have only had one further interaction in the months since. On 9 July, a debate was taking place on the Facebook page of the Cardiff Coal Exchange, a spectacular, beautiful building that had been allowed fall into a dangerous, derelict state over the last ten years, before being spectacularly revived into a hotel and conference centre by the Liverpool entrepreneur Lawrence Kenwright, beginning in late 2016. The building has now been restored to its former glory and is being run in a commercially sustainable way.
Doughty was opposed to the redevelopment for unfathomable reasons. He seemed to want to put bureaucratic obstacles in Mr Kenwright’s way. I have included screenshots from the interaction that followed. It looks to me as though Doughty was throwing one of his characteristic hissy fits.
Of course, Doughty is far from the only Labour MP who thinks he has the right to override the expressed will of the people because ‘he knows best’. Earlier this week, Doughty, his friend Chris Bryant and David Lammy were among many Labour MPs who feigned concern for workers’ rights as a pretext for trying to block the European Union Withdrawal Bill, while knowing full well that the so-called ‘Henry VIII Powers’ will only be used for very specific purposes, which I outlined on this website last week. Doughty and co’s real agenda was to at best frustrate and at worst block the Brexit process, something they know full well.
How long will it be before voters in Labour heartlands wake up and smell the coffee? With a handful of notable exceptions, the vast majority of Labour MPs think the decision taken to leave the EU by millions of working class people is something to be patronised, ignored, watered down and preferably reversed in the long term.
The sentiments expressed in Brecht’s poem were probably intended as an early attempt at satire, but they seem to reflect the mentality of most Labour MPs, who think their own opinions are superior to those of their constituents. When will voters in the Labour heartlands realise that the party to which they give their unwavering loyalty treats them with utter contempt?
WAS LABOUR ever really the party of ordinary working people? I am not sure. But if those days ever existed at all, future historians will pinpoint the absolute latest date at which they ended as 5 September 2017.
For that was the date when the Labour leadership announced that it will order all its MPs to vote against the European Union Withdrawal Bill when it comes before the House of Commons next Monday (11 September 2017).
The bill will repeal the 1972 European Communities Act, which took the United Kingdom into the EEC (the precursor to the European Union), and meant that European law took precedence over laws passed in the UK Parliament. It will also end the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.
Crucially, all existing EU legislation will be copied across into domestic UK law to ensure a smooth transition on the day after Brexit. This matters because there are believed to be 12,000 EU regulations in force, while Parliament has passed 7,900 statutory instruments implementing EU legislation and 186 acts which incorporate a degree of EU influence.
The total body of European law, dating back to 1958, is known as the Acquis Communautaire. It binds all member states and in 2010 was estimated to consist of about 80,000 items, covering everything from workers’ rights to environment and trade. As well as regulations, this includes EU treaties, directions and European Court of Justice rulings.
The EU creates new diktats all the time, and the UK will continue to abide by them until it formally leaves.
So what’s the problem? On the surface, it appears that the Labour Party dislikes what are colloquially known as ‘Henry VIII’ powers, after the Statute of Proclamations in 1539. What this means in the current context is that Ministers will be able to make changes to the statute book without going through the usual Parliamentary scrutiny process.
This sounds very nasty and undemocratic, but these powers are an absolute necessity and are nothing to be concerned about, provided they are limited and defined. For example, in many instances, there will be the need to amend a bill to take out a reference to an EU body serving as a regulator and replace it with a reference to a UK regulator. It would be a hideous waste of Parliamentary time to have to put each and every reference before the House, and would clog up Parliamentary business completely, something Labour knows full well.
Ministers have already taken steps to reassure critics that such measures will be time limited and will not be used to make policy changes. The government estimates that between 800 and 1,000 measures known as ‘statutory instruments’ will be required to make sure the process functions properly.
What does Labour dislike about this? To quote the statement released on Tuesday: “Labour fully respects the democratic decision to leave the European Union, voted to trigger Article 50 and backs a jobs-first Brexit with full tariff-free access to the European single market.
“But as democrats we cannot vote for a bill that unamended would let government ministers grab powers from Parliament to slash people’s rights at work and reduce protection for consumers and the environment.”
“Parliament has already voted to leave the European Union. But the Government’s EU (Withdrawal) Bill would allow Conservative ministers to set vital terms on a whim, including of Britain’s exit payment, without democratic scrutiny.
“Nobody voted in last year’s referendum to give this Conservative Government sweeping powers to change laws by the back door. The slogan of the Leave campaign was about people taking back control and restoring powers to Parliament.
“This power-grab bill would do the opposite. It would allow the Government to seize control from the Parliament that the British people have just elected.”
It’s hard to take a statement seriously that includes meaningless jargon like ‘jobs-first Brexit’ in its opening sentence. The second sentence fares little better. Labour knows full well that the government would be committing political suicide if it dared to ‘slash’ people’s rights at work without going through the normal Parliamentary process. Labour also knows that the main purpose of the Henry VIII powers is to replace references to EU bodies in legislation with UK ones.
What is astonishing is that the Labour Party, and indeed pro-EU Conservative MPs like Kenneth Clarke and Anna Soubry had very little to say when governments implemented thousands of EU directives without Parliamentary scrutiny. The timing of their sudden conversion to absolute belief in Parliamentary democracy is convenient to say the very least. It’s also worth remembering that the Shadow Brexit Secretary, ‘Sir’ Keir Starmer was quite keen on extra-parliamentary law-making when he was Director of Public Prosecutions.
Sir Keir has already said that ‘no deal’ is the worst possible deal. That means we can reach one of two conclusions about him:
Either he is too stupid to understand that his comments incentivise the EU to offer the UK a very bad deal on the grounds that the UK is desperate to accept any deal. As an experienced barrister and a former Director of Public Prosecutions, we can probably rule that out.
The alternative conclusion is that Sir Keir is on the side of the EU bullies of Barnier, Juncker and Verhofstadt, and that real agenda is to frustrate and water down Brexit to the greatest extent possible, with a view to keeping the UK in the EU in all but name, with a view to re-joining on the pretext of a future economic downturn.
Labour’s stance proves once and for all, beyond doubt, that it does not truly respect the expressed wishes of the electorate. 161 of the 262 Labour MPs currently in Parliament represent constituencies that voted Leave at last year’s referendum. The referendum was not advisory, as some of the more slippery Remain supporters claim. It was an instruction. Every household in the country was sent a booklet prior to the referendum that included the statement, “This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.”
I have no idea what more evidence voters in the Labour heartlands need that the people they routinely elect treat them with utter contempt. Jeremy Corbyn looks and behaves like an ageing, slightly eccentric university professor, and that is now the class of person the Labour Party represents – the university lecturers, middle class idealistic students and the Islington dinner party circuit. It does not listen to, or address the concerns of, the working class communities in the grimmer parts of the country, and has not been a ‘grass roots’ workers movement for a very long time indeed.
For example, Owen Smith’s constituency of Pontypridd backed Leave 53.7% in the referendum, yet Smith had the nerve to vote against the triggering of Article 50 in February. In the general election four months later, Smith was returned to Parliament with 55.4% of the vote, and an increased majority of 6,549.
The people of Pontypridd often have an attitude of, “I’m Labour, always have been, always will be, and my father before me.” A dangerous local groupthink sets in. They do not stop and think about what the Labour Party has actually done to deserve their unquestioning loyalty. In this instance, they had two good reasons not to vote for Smith: Firstly, he made a careerist attempt to replace Corbyn as Labour leader in the autumn of 2016 and sought to take the party in a Blairite direction. Secondly, he disobeyed the instruction his constituents gave him when he voted against the triggering of Article 50 in February 2017.
What more proof do the people of Pontypridd need that their MP, and their party, treats them and their concerns with utter contempt? Pontypridd is a powerful example because of the brazen nature of Smith’s antipathy, but a similar pattern emerges across the Labour heartlands in the South Wales Valleys and Northern England.
The European Union Withdrawal Bill will, in all likelihood, get through Parliament with the help of the Democratic Unionist Party, and Labour’s comments will amount to nothing more than hot air. There will, of course, be some decent Labour MPs, such as the excellent Kate Hoey, who will defy the whip and vote with the government. They deserve our admiration and respect for putting their constituents before their party.
Surely the time has now come for voters in Labour heartlands to finally acknowledge their loyalty towards the party is not reciprocated, and that they have been taken for granted once too often.
IF YOU have a roof that needs repairing, should you hire qualified professionals or let the cowboys do the work? All sensible beings know it is far better to pay a bit more and get suitably-trained people in rather than risk shoddy workmanship or even danger from the cheaper option.
We face a similar dilemma with our approach to the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union. The result was a clear, but not overwhelming victory for ‘Leave’ (52% to 48%), and a degree of magnanimity towards our opponents who voted ‘Remain’ is desirable. But the make-up of the House of Commons, and the leadership of the main political parties are dominated by ‘Remain’ supporters.
In other words, we have put the task of guiding the country out of the EU into the hands of politicians who, at best, don’t really believe Brexit is in the UK’s best interests, and at worst, will try to sabotage the process to suit their ‘I told you so’ agenda. In turn, this may lead to a ‘half in, half out’ Brexit, or, quite possibly, a poor deal that does so much damage to the economy that within a few years the UK will be begging to re-join the EU on whatever terms it can get (which will almost certainly mean adopting the euro).
I have never, for a single second, doubted that my ‘Leave’ vote last year was the correct one. I am absolute in my belief that the UK will be freer and more prosperous outside the EU than in it, but the UK’s departure from the EU needs to be handled correctly, by people who actually believe in Brexit. Let us put the current crop of political leaders under the microscope:
Theresa May became Prime Minister because nobody else wanted the job. She had a long and utterly unremarkable track record as Home Secretary, where she failed to meet the key 2010 manifesto pledges of bringing annual net immigration figures down to the tens of thousands (which is itself impossible for as long as the UK is in the EU) and the repeal of the Human Rights Act (a piece of legislation nowhere near as nice as its title suggests). Her handling of the fallout from the Jimmy Savile scandal was also nothing short of appalling.
There is little sign she disagreed with much of the New Labour project, and even less sign that she has ‘conservative’ instincts. There is personal warmth between her and the New Labour ultra-feminist Harriet Harman, and May once said at the dispatch box of the Commons that she ‘loved’ the foul-mouthed rock musician, ‘Sir’ Bob Geldof.
Mrs May kept her cards close to her chest during the referendum campaign. She was a ‘Remain’ supporter, but wasn’t very vocal about it, which was clearly a calculation on her part that by being relatively quiet, she would be in pole position for the leadership.
Most of the people in key Cabinet positions were ‘Remain’ supporters – Chancellor Philip Hammond, Home Secretary Amber Rudd, Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt, Defence Secretary Michael Fallon, Education Secretary Justine Greening, and Conservative Party Chairman Sir Patrick McLoughlin, to name but a few.
Even Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson’s support for ‘Leave’ should be treated with suspicion. He waited until the last possible moment to declare his hand before the referendum, and indeed had a newspaper opinion piece drafted, though never published, in which he outlined his support for ‘Remain’. A few years ago, I wrote an article about Johnson’s long CV as an unprincipled opportunist. He had no track record whatsoever as a eurosceptic campaigner prior to the weeks before the referendum.
Liam Fox, with his trade portfolio, has for years been described as a ‘eurosceptic’ in the press, but it was only in the run-up to the referendum that he stated he wanted to see the UK leave the EU. Before then, he appeared to be one of those ghastly hybrid characters who says they dislike the EU but would like the UK to remain in a reformed EU (anyone with any understanding of how the EU operates knows that this is a far-fetched pipe dream).
The only major Cabinet figure with a solid background in euroscepticism and who appears to be on top of his brief is Brexit Secretary David Davis, though even he was once pro-EU and served as Europe Minister for a period in the John Major government of the 1990s. Yes, I do believe his long-ago conversion to euroscepticism is genuine, and yes, I do believe he is a political heavyweight. He also comes across as sincere and affable, and is on good terms with MPs from other parties. But he cannot undertake this arduous task alone, and I have concerns about the mandarins and support network that surrounds him.
A few weeks ago, James Chapman, the former political journalist who became a civil servant, had a very public breakdown on Twitter in which he declared his hatred of Brexit. It subsequently became clear that Chapman is mentally unwell and we should wish him a return to health. But what is of wider concern is that Chapman spent a year working alongside David Davis in the Brexit Department. How many other people with similar views still hold significant positions of influence within the civil service?
On the Labour side, Jeremy Corbyn had a long, proud track record of euroscepticism stretching back decades. Corbyn’s support base is with the Labour membership, but inside Parliament, his own back benches are dominated by younger, careerist Blairites and Brownites who despise him.
In the run-up to the referendum, Corbyn feared his position as leader was insecure, and as an appeasement to his back benchers, he came out as a ‘Remain’ supporter, but he never looked very convincing. The telling point came when the alleged ‘comedian’ Adam Hills asked Corbyn on TV what his level of enthusiasm for staying in the EU was out of ten and he replied, “Seven and seven-and-a-half.” It was hardly a ringing endorsement.
Throughout the campaign, Corbyn’s support for ‘Remain’ seemed half-hearted at best. Most of the time, he sounded like a hostage reading out his captor’s demands. The leadership challenge came regardless last autumn in the shape of Owen Smith, a chancer with a bit of causal misogyny and thuggery thrown in. Corbyn won, thanks almost entirely to his support with the modern-day Labour grassroots of middle class students and Islington intellectuals, but he would have been better off sticking to his eurosceptic principles during the campaign. The leadership challenge was always going to come. If he’d stuck to his guns, he would have developed a strong bond with the traditional Labour heartlands in the north of England and in the South Wales Valleys, which in turn would have strengthened his hand in the inevitable leadership contest.
Corbyn’s political mentor was that fine anti-EU campaigner Tony Benn. If Benn was still around, I find it inconceivable that Corbyn would have done his damaging u-turn to appease the New Labour disciples who continued to despise him in any case. The vast majority of Labour MPs are both pro-EU and anti-Corbyn. Even now, after a general election campaign in which he exceeded expectations, Corbyn struggles to get enough support from his own backbenches to form a Shadow Cabinet.
The likes of David Lammy, the slippery and calculating Stephen Doughty (in whose constituency I live), and around 200 others, will have to put up with Corbyn’s leadership for as long as he is seen to be doing well. But they have numerous ways of tripping him up, and are biding their time for the opportunity to remove him and replace him by a clean-shaven, sharp suited type in the mould of Blair who will block or reverse Brexit.
Even with Corbyn at the helm, the party’s policy appears to have changed towards committing the UK to membership of the Single Market, and more importantly the Customs Union, which effectively means being a member of the EU in all but name. I will address the difference between the Single Market (which I am open-minded about) and the Customs Union (which I am strongly against) in an upcoming article on this website.
The sarcastically-named Liberal Democrats and their leader, ‘Sir’ Vince Cable (himself a leader as a result of a coronation rather than a contest), barely even try to disguise the contempt they hold for Brexit. With 12 seats, they are a rump of the party they were just two years ago, but it is clear they will use what little power they have to try and stop Brexit from happening.
Actually, I have some sympathy with old-school patriotic liberals in the tradition of David Lloyd George and Jo Grimond. In the years that followed the merger between the Liberals and the SDP, it gradually became clear that the so-called ‘Liberal Democrats’ were saturated by the political children of the dreadful Roy Jenkins.
Our entire political establishment is dominated by those who support the EU project and hate the result of last year’s referendum. True eurosceptics are few and far between in Parliament, and even they are mostly pushed to the margins of their respective parties. The civil service appears to mirror Parliament with its lack of Brexit enthusiasts and its lacklustre preparation for negotiations so far.
A significant minority of backbench Conservative MPs make the right noises on Brexit, but not many of them are in Mrs May’s inner circle. The Labour Party has reliable Brexit supporters in the form of Kate Hoey, Frank Field and a small number of others, but they do not hold much influence with Corbyn, and in any case are massively outnumbered by admirers of Blair, Brown and either of the Miliband brothers, a group of apparent rivals who all strongly support continued membership of the EU. Actually, their much gossiped-about rivalries were always more to do with personality clashes and political ambitions rather than significant disagreements on policy.
All this does not bode well for a period in British political history that requires strong leadership and absolute commitment to the task in hand.
We need to face up to reality about the National Health Service. For too long, it has been politically taboo to question whether the current model is either the best way of providing healthcare, or its sustainability in the long term.
The Labour Party likes to portray Aneurin Bevan as the founder of the NHS. This is not the case. In fact, it was a key recommendation of the Beveridge Report of 1942, in which William Beveridge, a Liberal economist, outlined social reforms that were to be brought in at the end of World War II.
Both the Conservative and Labour parties agreed in principle to implement the report’s recommendations, regardless of which party won the first general election after the war (it came in 1945, and was won by Labour).
Beveridge’s vision was of a National Health Service run through local health centres and regional hospital administrations. In other words, they were to be non-political and free from government interference. But in the years immediately after 1945, Labour’s Minister of Health, Aneurin Bevan, had other ideas.
Bevan, a temperamental, undiplomatic, extreme left winger, loathed by many inside the Labour Party, fought hard in Cabinet to abandon Beveridge’s vision in favour of a centralised structure of 14 regional boards appointed by the Minister of Health and local management committees.
From that moment onwards, the NHS became a political football, and it has remained so ever since. Bevan, knowing full well the implications of the seed he was sowing, didn’t allow facts and evidence to get in the way of his ideological dogma. Sir Harold Webbe, the Conservative leader on London County Council, was unhappy about local government’s role in the NHS being removed, and said of Bevan, “He is so full of his own importance that he is prepared to pit his knowledge against the accumulated experience of this council, which is to be butchered to make a Welshman’s holiday.”
Yet even Beveridge’s vision for an NHS contained three major assumptions that sounded quite reasonable at the time, but subsequently turned out to be utterly incorrect:
As people became healthier, demand on the NHS would decrease.
The demographics of society would remain roughly the same.
The NHS could be paid for from ‘the stamp’, now known as National Insurance.
The reality has been utterly different. Huge medical advances in the last 60 years have resulted in significantly increased life expectancy, albeit with the assistance of ongoing care and drugs, which come at a price.
With the exception of the Callaghan government of 1976-79, all administrations have overseen vast increases in real-terms spending on the NHS, as demographics shifted, demand increased, and medical advances continued. By the late 1980s, National Insurance could just about cover pensions and contributory benefits, with the occasional bit of help from general taxation, but it was certainly no longer in a position to fund the NHS.
There is some evidence that Margaret Thatcher understood the magnitude of the problem as long ago as the early 1980s, but she was advised not to handle the ‘hot potato’.
The time has come to end the mawkish obsession with the NHS model, which was epitomised at the 2012 Olympic opening ceremony by the sight of nurses jumping up and down on beds. Britain’s cancer and stroke survival rates are significantly down on where they should be for an apparently rich country, and there is a lack of choice on the part of the patient.
It is easy to see why the Labour Party is so ideologically attached to the NHS. It frequently misleads people into believing it is a Labour creation, and is one of very few things in this country that can in any way, shape or form be described as a Labour success story.
The quasi-religious reverence with which the Labour Party treats the NHS, and the way in which it tries to make bogeymen of anyone who questions it in any way, is holding back a full, honest and frank debate about how we provide sustainable healthcare for the next 50 years.
When they hear any form of criticism of the NHS, their default position is always to make crude comparisons with the system in the USA, one they rarely know very much about, and are quick to point to horror stories within, while conveniently ignoring the numerous deaths in the NHS due to poor hygiene, lengthy waiting times and medical negligence. Doctors and nurses themselves are treated as saints to be revered, rather than tax-funded employees who deserve praise and respect when they do well, but should not be above criticism when they fall short of certain standards.
It is as though no other countries or healthcare systems exist elsewhere in the world. Why can’t we try to learn lessons from Singapore, which from a very low starting point in the 1960s, has managed to create and sustain one of the very best health systems anywhere on earth? Or what about continental Europe, where many countries operate with a mix of public and private healthcare, with compulsory insurance schemes using various models?
This debate should have begun at least 20 years ago, but there are signs that we are approaching the point where the current NHS system is unsustainable. Sooner or later, we will have to face up to this impending reality. Is it not better to do so while the hospitals and GP surgeries are just about working?
THIS has been a dull, lacklustre, uninspiring election campaign. In recent weeks, for entirely understandable reasons, the emphasis has been firmly on national security and the party leaders. As a result, details of the party manifestos have been under-reported and under-scrutinised.
One substantial Labour policy that has ‘slipped through the net’ is the pledge to reduce the voting age to 16. It’s worth providing a brief history of the voting franchise and how we ended up with ‘equal votes for everybody’.
In 1918, all men aged 21 and over, and all women aged 30 and over, were given the vote. The role of the suffragettes was far more controversial than is generally taught in schools today (not that it is taught in much depth in most schools).
Closer examination reveals that their violence, arson and vandalism alienated more people than they inspired, and it was the conscription of women into the workforce as a result of World War I in 1914 that led to votes for all women over 30, along with other social changes.
There were some interesting quirks to the arguments, many of which are no longer widely recognised. Many women were opposed to the suffragettes, and many in the Liberal Party feared that women voters would tend to be Conservatives, and did their best to delay the reforms.
It wasn’t until 1928 that the voting age for women was reduced to 21, bringing it into line with men. You will have to look elsewhere for a more detailed account of how the franchise was extended in the 19th and early 20th centuries, for I have more pressing matters to attend to here.
The next major changes occurred in 1948, when University seats were abolished. University seats resulted in a number of distinguished and exceptional individuals from entering Parliament who could not realistically have done so by any other means.
In the mid-1960s, Screaming Lord Sutch called for the voting age to be lowered to 18. He was probably joking, but, like several of the causes he championed, they were eventually to be taken seriously by the political establishment (the others being the launch of local and commercial radio, all-day pub opening, passports for pets, and knighthoods for the Beatles).
Just four years later, Harold Wilson’s Labour government reduced the voting age to 18 in a cynical but unsuccessful attempt to rig the 1970 general election in their favour. This piece of legislation had the frightening side-effect of putting 18-year-olds on juries.
Jeremy Corbyn’s attempt to lower the age further to 16 is being proposed for similarly cynical reasons, not dissimilar to those which motivated Alex Salmond to do the same thing in the 2014 Scottish independence referendum.
Ask yourself this simple question: Do you want your future decided by 16-year-olds? Think very carefully.
16-year-olds are not wise. You were not wise at 16, and neither was I. Most people of that age will either still be in, or have just left comprehensive schools, where most of their teachers will have been Labour voters, and theories such as man-made climate change will have been taught as absolute fact, and the EU as an absolutely good thing.
Most 16-year-olds are idealistic, especially on matters such as environmental issues and foreign policy. Most will believe that the world is a far nicer place than it is.
Many will be easy to manipulate as a consequence of dire, egalitarian comprehensive education, and due to the tremendous peer pressure they feel at that age to conform. Quite a number idolise celebrities of the day and will follow whatever they are told to do by them.
For example, around the time of the 2015 election, Russell Brand was the ‘in’ celebrity with a lot of young people (a phase that has thankfully now passed). It’s hard to know exactly why he was so popular for quite a long time, but I put it down to a mix of his use of obscure words, which the easily-manipulated are flattered by and confuse with intelligence, and his fashionable opinions on drug use.
Around that time, a considerable number of 16-year-olds would have voted whichever way Brand told them to. 15 years earlier, the American rapper, Eminem, had a similar hold on many young people’s minds. In the 1960s and 70s, John Lennon and Yoko Ono assumed such power. You get the idea.
With age comes wisdom and responsibilities. It is a gradual process. I was fortunate in that I realised that the EU was a very bad thing and that Anthony Blair’s New Labour project was doing immense damage to this country several years before I turned 16. But even so, I had no experience of paying taxes, a superficial understanding of foreign policy, and no comprehension of my now-absolute belief that the man-made climate change theory is disastrous, very expensive and fundamentally flawed.
I began my journey to political maturity while still at school, and I was very much the exception to the rule, but I wouldn’t for one second conclude that it was anywhere near complete at 16.
At university, I witnessed how most 18-21-year-old politics students held similar views. They nearly always voted Labour or Lib Dem, believed the EU to be a good thing, and assumed man-made climate change to be absolute fact. I usually fought back in seminars to provide alternative arguments, though there were occasions where I concluded that it was more trouble than it was worth (especially on occasions when I was in a seminar with a Blairite tutor and a group of students I didn’t really know).
During last year’s referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU, politically-engaged university students voted Remain in large numbers, in stark contrast to continental countries, where grass roots movements against the EU are fuelled by the energy and enthusiasm of the young. It is therefore quite reasonable to ask questions as to what is going on with the teaching in British universities.
The journey of political maturity continues throughout one’s 20s. The idealism fades as people settle into jobs, careers and start families. They realise that the world can be a very nasty place, that solutions to problems are often far from simple, finding the complete truth is not always straightforward, and that, if they’re honest, priority number one is the wellbeing of themselves and their family.
Other realities also gradually dawn, such as the fact you are not indestructible, some people don’t live to old age, binge drinking is dangerous and has consequences, night clubs are overrated and that fitting in with your friends isn’t so important after all.
The ages from 21 until about 30 usually see the gradual drift away from idealism into a reality of paying taxes and adult responsibilities. The idealism of youth comes at somebody else’s expense. When you become the taxpayer, you become more concerned about how that money is spent, and you may conclude that you are often a better judge of how to spend your money than the government.
A deeper understanding of financial reality also develops through one’s 20s. You are either paying rent, or a mortgage, and prioritise how your pay packet is spent. You grasp that money that is borrowed eventually has to be paid back, and that it is a bad idea to get into too much debt.
The individual in his or her late 20s is therefore far more likely to see through Jeremy Corbyn’s teen-like idealism and the ‘back of a fag packet’ economic calculations.
Yes, there are problems with the current voting system, but not for the reasons Corbyn is advocating. The notion of ‘equal votes for everybody’ is broadly assumed to be a good thing, but few people bother to question it.
Fortunately, attempts by the EU to bully the UK into giving votes to prisoners have been thwarted. Those who are in prison have forfeited their right to participate in wider society, and that should remain the case.
Before 1914, there was a rule that nobody who received a public salary or welfare payment could vote, thereby preventing parties from bribing voters by giving them jobs or handouts, something that works strongly to Labour’s advantage.
Let us not forget that during the New Labour era, one million more public sector jobs were created. Let us also not forget the absurdity of the jobs pages in the Guardian every Wednesday during that era, with its ‘diversity officers’ and ‘five-a-day co-ordinators’. Such frivolity is, of course, a useful way for governments to buy votes and to keep the unemployment figures down.
Public sector workers often think (rightly) that their jobs will be better-protected by a Labour government than a Conservative one, and therefore jump to the conclusion that it is in the country’s interests to elect a Labour government. They very often neither know nor care much about the difference between ‘debt’ and ‘deficit’, or the balance of trade, or productivity rates. All these matters, and generating the money to pay their salaries is somebody else’s problem, and they’re quite prepared to let the Labour Party get on with it without bothering to look at the sums.
Realistically, we cannot withdraw the vote from those who already have it. Some ideas of how it can be reformed for the better can be found in Nevil Shute’s novel, ‘In the Wet’, where he devises a scheme for additional votes. Every person has one vote, with some having as many as seven, based on the criteria such as academic achievement, successful raising of children, having a trade, living abroad and other experiences that make you a wiser person.
This is obviously a pipe dream, and one that cannot be realised in the Britain of 2017. For now, it remains a ‘joke’ in the way Screaming Lord Sutch’s policy ideas of the mid-1960s were a joke, but in time, they became a reality (he didn’t live to see some of them come to fruition, so we cannot be sure of what he would make of the Britain of 2017). But if the wisdom of ‘equal votes for everybody’ is publicly discussed and challenged, it may not be so far-fetched in the long term.
Yes, it is desirable to reform the electoral system, but in favour of wisdom, experience and achievement, rather than by exploiting the naivety of youth for political gain.
The prospect of votes for 16-year-olds is just one more reason not to vote for Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party on Thursday.
TERROR attacks in major European cities have become semi-normalised. What would have shocked us 20 years ago now causes a much briefer pause to the routines of day-to-day life.
A number of politicians have today made comparisons between Monday night’s suicide bomb at the Manchester Arena to the IRA bomb which devastated the city centre in 1996.
This was a crass comparison. However despicable and morally diseased the IRA were, they did at least issue a phone warning prior to the Manchester bomb, which caused £700 million worth of damage to the city centre. There were no fatalities, but more than 200 people were injured.
Monday night’s suicide bomber, Salman Abedi, issued no warning. He wasn’t motivated by a desire to cause the sort of economic disruption the 1996 bomb brought. He sought to kill people in the name of Islam, many of them young, all of them innocent. At the time of writing, 22 are dead, 59 are injured, and many more will be suffering the psychological effects of Abedi’s actions.
A certain routine kicks in after each atrocity. Politicians blurt out platitudes about how the terrorists ‘will not be allowed to destroy our way of life’ and how ‘we will not be defeated’. Even Andy Burnham, the newly-elected Mayor of Manchester, dared to say, “Today it will be business as usual as far as possible in our great city” less than 12 hours after the atrocity.
The Facebook emojis, the cutesy hashtags on Twitter, the candle lit vigils and hastily-arranged memorial services come next, and within days, life returns to normal. Make no mistake, by the start of next week, the insipid, vacuous general election campaign will have resumed in full swing. And that is exactly how our political classes want it, because any deeper analysis would force us to look into how decisions they have taken over the last few decades have contributed to these atrocities. More on that later.
When deciding how to proceed from here, it is important not to allow our emotions to affect our decisions. Yes, we are all feeling upset and angry at the moment. We’re all too acutely aware that on another day, in another place, any one of us could have been caught up in this. Instead of hysterical calls for us to shut down mosques or bomb men in caves in faraway lands, it is best to take stock of what we actually know about this, and similar attacks in other European cities.
The perpetrator of the Nice attack in July 2016, Mohamed Salmene Lahouaiej-Bouhlel, never went near a mosque. He was a drunk and a drug user with a long history of mental health problems, who was radicalised by watching online content.
The Berlin Christmas Market attack, later that same year, was carried out by Anis Amari, a Tunisian failed asylum seeker and a drug abuser, who was radicalised in Italian jails. Amari was a thief, an arsonist and a bar brawler.
The Westminster attacker of March 2017 had been in prison three times, including one conviction for stabbing a man in the face, in addition to a string of other criminal convictions for lesser offences. It appears he was radicalised in jail, or by watching material on the internet.
Some who knew him say he was a cannabis user (which in itself can lead to permanent mental health problems, regardless of propaganda which states otherwise) and a bodybuilder, which means he may have been taking steroids – powerful, mind-altering drugs that were used by mass murderers Anders Breivik, Raoul Moat and Omar Mateen.
A pattern is emerging here, is it not?
There are two logical conclusions we can reach from this:
We know there are serious problems in prisons of Muslim radicalisation, Muslim gangs, and prisoners being forced to convert to Islam in return for a tolerable life in prison. It’s clear that in some prisons, the wardens and others in authority have lost control. Muslims in prison need to be detained separately from other prisoners, and measures need to be taken to improve prison discipline in general.
The influence of the internet on some people, which is worthy of a more detailed explanation.
My generation, and generations before me, grew up in an era of regulated television. Bad language was not tolerated before the 9pm watershed, and even after it, certain words had to be used sparingly, or not at all.
Nudity was not acceptable before the watershed, and even after it, broadcasters had to exercise caution and restraint. The same applied to violence.
There were rules, at all times of the day and night, to prevent extremist views or the incitement of violence from being aired.
By comparison, the internet is the Wild West. Anybody with even a basic understanding of computers can access all kinds of pornography, including child pornography, scenes of extreme violence, both acted out and real, foul language, and political and cultural extremism. Laws to prevent some of these things may, in theory, exist, but the global and unregulated nature of the internet makes such laws very difficult to enforce.
We all need to exercise a certain amount of judgement and restraint when it comes to the entertainment we consume. We have all heard the saying, ‘you are what you eat’. It means that if you eat the wrong foods, you will become overweight and ill, and your wellbeing will suffer.
That same principle applies to entertainment. There is nothing wrong with being entertained, but we have a duty to ourselves to ensure that we are watching something wholesome. Scenes which would have appeared shocking just 20 years ago now pass without controversy. We have become desensitised to bad language, violence and aggression. The moral compass and behavioural standards of individuals and society as a whole has been lowered because of what passes for ‘entertainment’ in 2017.
Similarly, drug users, the mentally unstable and the easily manipulated are accessing Islamic extremist literature and videos on the internet that would rightly never be shown on TV or be available in a book in any shop or library. There are no restrictions on what they can access, no taste and decency barriers on what they see.
The radicalising is not for the most part being done in mosques or Islamic community centres, but in prison cells and in front of computer screens. This makes it a far more difficult problem to combat.
This does not mean that ordinary Muslims do not bear some responsibility for the situation the UK, and indeed all of Europe now finds itself in.
Part of the ‘routine’ of terrorist attacks in Europe is that about three days afterwards, the Muslim ‘good news’ story emerges. After several days of being told that Islam has nothing to do with the attack, we are told that Muslims are participating in some generous ‘reaching out’ gesture to the wider community.
In reality, almost all of these efforts are carried out by Ahmadiyya Muslims, a tiny sect who have faced many decades of persecution from other Muslim groups, many of whom do not consider them to be Muslims at all.
If you see Muslims selling poppies in early November, they are almost certainly Ahmadiyya. Within days of the Berlin attack, groups of Muslims were seen attending church in Germany. The mainstream media reported that ‘Muslims’ were doing this. In fact, they were Ahmadiyya. The Independent newspaper reported that: “Muslims handing out t-shirts reading “love for all, hate for none” at a vigil in Berlin have said they will not allow the city to become more divided following Monday’s attack on a Christmas market.”
Now for the reality check: ‘Love for all, hate for none’ is an Ahmadiyya campaign. A solidarity protest around the same period was populated by Muslim men wearing T-shirts saying ‘Muslimefür Frieden’ (‘Muslims for peace’), which, funnily enough, is an Ahmadiyya slogan. If you look at the back of the t-shirts in question they direct you to an Ahmadiyya website.
In July 2016, Fr Jacques Hamal, an 85-year-old priest in Normandy was brutally murdered while celebrating Mass by terrorists claiming to be from Islamic State.
A few days later, the ‘Muslim good news’ story arrived, as usual, and this time it was that Muslims had been attending Mass across France and Italy in solidarity with Christians. Unsurprisingly, closer examination reveals that in most cases the Muslim attendees were from the Ahmadiyya sect. The BBC, the Guardian and the Independent all left that important fact out of their reports for some reason.
The day after the Westminster terror attack in March 2017, Muslim women held hands in a protest on Westminster Bridge condemning the culprit, Khalid Masood. Once again, yes, you’ve guessed it, they were Ahmadiyya Muslims.
There is a serious problem brewing in UK one which we can no longer afford to ignore. The Muslim population has grown enormously in a very short space of time. The 1961 census put the figure at 50,000. By 1991, that number had grown to 950,000. Ten years later, it stood at 1,600,000, and in 2011 it was 2,706,000. A 2014 estimate pushes the figure above three million for the first time.
Muslims are, on average, younger than the rest of the population and have more children. You do not need to be a mathematical genius to work out what this means. Add to the fact that net migration to the UK stands at 273,000 per year, a significant number of whom are Muslims, and it’s clear what the direction of travel is.
To those outside the UK, we have a sort of unofficial apartheid in this country. Muslims and non-Muslims use the same public transport and walk the same town centre streets, but they barely mix at all for the rest of the time.
There are all sorts of reasons for this, which are mainly to do with cultural attitudes. Muslims are not permitted to drink alcohol, so you cannot expect to get to know them over a pint, or invite them to the pub quiz team. Men and women mixing socially is frowned upon by many Muslims.
Here’s something that a surprising number of non-Muslims don’t know: A significant number of Muslims believe all music is haram (forbidden), many more still will only listen to music based on Islamic prayer. You are highly unlikely to find many Muslims who have much interest in secular music.
So we cannot bond over alcohol, or music, and Muslims are told that dogs are unclean, so don’t expect to find many while out in the local park walking yours. There is little common ground between them and us culturally and socially. That is the uncomfortable truth.
But it goes deeper than that. In every major city, and in many smaller towns, unofficial Sharia courts operate for the local Muslim community. Under Sharia law, the evidence of a woman is worth half that of a man, even if it is blatantly obvious she is telling the truth.
Many people will feel uncomfortable with Muslims having a separate set of laws and standards to the rest of us on matters such as divorce and domestic violence, but that is the reality. Participation in Sharia courts is voluntary, in theory at least, but in reality, it would take a very brave Muslim woman to defy them or refuse to participate.
Let me be clear, I am not saying that all Muslims are bad, or that everything about Islam is bad. I admire certain aspects of Islam – its belief in a work ethic (sitting around claiming benefits is frowned upon), its commitment to family, the value it puts on education, the discipline the faith requires, such as fasting during Ramadan, and the way it instructs its followers to refrain from alcohol, drugs and gambling.
On the other hand, there are aspects of the Islamic faith that give me serious cause for concern. I reject its claim to be the one true faith, and dislike the way non-Muslims are treated in many Muslim majority countries. I believe the Islamic faith has a very nasty strain of anti-Semitism running through it. Parts of the Qur’an, particularly towards the end, give me cause for concern, particularly since Muslims are instructed to follow the example of the Prophet Mohammed. I also do not believe that being a Muslim should be a valid excuse for barbaric Halal slaughter in our country.
Most concerning of all is that the survey found that more than 100,000 British Muslims sympathise with suicide bombers and only one in three (34%) would contact the police if they believed that somebody close to them had become involved with jihadists.
Look, let’s stop pretending. These appalling attitudes and opinions are not confined to a ‘tiny minority’ of Muslims living in Britain. Such views are held by a sizeable minority, however uncomfortable that makes us feel. And the facts back it up.
Nasser and Reyaad Khan made a 13-minute ISIS video calling on other British Muslims to join the fighting in Syria and Iraq. Both attended St David’s Catholic College in Cardiff, where I also studied in the early 2000s.
Similarly, in Rotherham, at least 1,400 girls were groomed and abused by a Muslim sex ring from the late 1980s until the 2010s, yet in that large town with its sizeable Muslim population, there was a wall of silence. This pattern repeated itself in Oxford and Oldham on a smaller scale.
The vast majority of Muslims do not abuse children, and I am quite prepared to believe that a majority did not know that children were being abused in these towns. I am also prepared to believe that a large number of Cardiff’s Muslims were unaware of the ISIS connections among their own community.
Yet British Muslims can be well-organised, loud and vocal when it suits them to be. In 2006, around 3,500 Muslims took the time and trouble to protest outside the Danish Embassy in London after a little-read newspaper in that country published cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed.
In 2015, following the publication of a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed in the tacky, little-read French magazine, Charlie Hebdo, more than 100,000 British Muslims signed a petition delivered to Downing St in which they called for ‘global civility’ and stated that the production of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad are “an affront to the norms of civilised society”. Many thousands marched in a London protest on the matter.
Is it really too much to ask of them to conjure up that same level of enthusiasm and alert the authorities of extremists, potential terrorists and child abusers living among their communities?
I realise these are uncomfortable truths for the politically correct classes who live in a sort of multicultural dreamland bubble. I understand that speaking out may jeopardise their promotion prospects, particularly if they work in the public sector, and they risk being excluded from the fashionable dinner party circuits in which they mix.
But we have now reached the stage where turning a blind eye to reality has resulted in people paying with their lives. And they don’t come much more innocent than the people in the Manchester Arena last Monday night.